Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > better Kodak reorganization

Reply
Thread Tools

better Kodak reorganization

 
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
On 08/05/2013 10:20, Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 09:02:49 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
>> duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
>> grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
>> was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.

>
> You could have a look at the Ohnar side copier. It is available in two
> versions - full frame and aps-c.


I still have one of the old 35mm design (hence the 70% crop). It is less
of a faff than firing up tetchy SCSI peripherals on an old machine.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
In article <KEnit.41344$(E-Mail Removed)>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Most users of PhotoCD bought
> >> a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
> >> confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

> >
> > I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is now catching dust on a
> > cupboard. Haven't used it for years, because using it is so complicated
> > and the quality is poor compared to digital.

>
> But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
> duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
> grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
> was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.


what does a full frame sensor have to do with using a scanner?

if you're thinking of slide duplicators (lens, bellows, slide holder),
those work on fx or dx, but it's not as good as a scanner.

> But the point I was making here was Kodak pretty much set out to annoy
> and alienate its high value customers by muddying the waters with two
> products of radically different quality both acronymed to PCD!
>
> Had they called the new consumer grade "PictureCD" say "ImageCD" or
> "SnapshotCD" the confused dealer problem would never have arisen.


having both photocd and picturecd was stupid.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> On May 7, 12:48*pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
> >
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bowser says...
> > >> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
> > >> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
> > >> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.

> >
> > >... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
> > >devise to kill digital photography?

> >
> > OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:
> >
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...k_eulogy.shtml
> >
> > Still, what a moron...

>
> There are numerous examples of large companies being wholly and
> illogically resistant to change. Sony, GM, Bell, the list of
> casualties and soon-to-be casualties goes on.


Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.


 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, Anton
> Shepelev says...
> >
> > Alfred Molon:
> >
> > > I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is
> > > now catching dust on a cupboard. Haven't used it
> > > for years, because using it is so complicated and
> > > the quality is poor compared to digital.

> >
> > Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans, using
> > a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
> >
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey02.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey26.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey29.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey36.jpg
> >
> > And no, it is not complicated once you learn to use
> > it.

>
> Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
> http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg


I think your scanner is busticated. It looks like the green on the left
side of that shot is way, way out of register.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jean-David Beyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
> (E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
>>>
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bowser says...
>>>>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>>>>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>>>>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>>>
>>>> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
>>>> devise to kill digital photography?
>>>
>>> OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:
>>>
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...k_eulogy.shtml
>>>
>>> Still, what a moron...

>>
>> There are numerous examples of large companies being wholly and
>> illogically resistant to change. Sony, GM, Bell, the list of
>> casualties and soon-to-be casualties goes on.

>
> Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.
>
>

In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the
company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in,
but were not the primary cause.

My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail
onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were
forced out by their age. They were replaced by business administration
types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the
football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans
(Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter.
They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next
quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options
and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après
moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this
over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy.
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
> On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
> > (E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >>
> >> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
> >>>
> >>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bowser says...
> >>>>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
> >>>>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
> >>>>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
> >>>
> >>>> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
> >>>> devise to kill digital photography?
> >>>
> >>> OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...k_eulogy.shtml
> >>>
> >>> Still, what a moron...
> >>
> >> There are numerous examples of large companies being wholly and
> >> illogically resistant to change. Sony, GM, Bell, the list of
> >> casualties and soon-to-be casualties goes on.

> >
> > Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.
> >
> >

> In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the
> company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in,
> but were not the primary cause.
>
> My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail
> onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were
> forced out by their age. They were replaced by business administration
> types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the
> football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans
> (Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter.
> They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next
> quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options
> and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après
> moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this
> over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy.


So you're saying that the MCI lawsuit that resulted in the breakup of
AT&T into 7 different companies and forced the divestiture of Western
Electric and Bell Labs was not the major factor in the decline of AT&T?




 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
On 08/05/2013 21:53, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, Anton
>> Shepelev says...
>>>
>>> Alfred Molon:
>>>
>>>> I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is
>>>> now catching dust on a cupboard. Haven't used it
>>>> for years, because using it is so complicated and
>>>> the quality is poor compared to digital.
>>>
>>> Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans, using
>>> a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
>>>
>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey02.jpg
>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey26.jpg
>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey29.jpg
>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey36.jpg
>>>
>>> And no, it is not complicated once you learn to use
>>> it.

>>
>> Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
>> http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg

>
> I think your scanner is busticated. It looks like the green on the left
> side of that shot is way, way out of register.


Not sure it is the scanners fault so much as the original source
material never having been in good focus. Take a look at top right and
edge where there is scratch damage to the slide - that is tack sharp.

When I got my Nikon Coolscan I compared it against PCD scans and found
that it was very slightly better than the 6Mpixel 16 base scans. eg

http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/pcd/photob.htm

The auto white balance tended to over correct to "true" white but that
was easily fixed in a manual adjustment. Scans using default settings.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anton Shepelev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
Alfred Molon:

> > Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans,
> > using a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
> >
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey02.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey26.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey29.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...8/sergey36.jpg
> >
> > And no, it is not complicated once you learn to
> > use it.

>
> Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
> http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg


Accept my envy on having a 4000-dpi scanner. Your
whole scan looks absolutely out-of-focus: for I see
no sign of grain which must be present at this reso-
lution in the form of brightness-and-color noise.
Your scanner seems to have been not focused proper-
ly. Scanner software (Nikkon's and VueScan) usually
has a setting to disable autofocus and let the user
choose the exact point whereupon he wishes to set
the focus. This may be preferred for two reasons:

1. To choose a spot on which it is easier to fo-
cus. It should have some medium contrast,
rather than being high-contrast or monotone.

2. To compensate for film curl by focusing at
different points, noting the suggested set-
tings and finally setting the focus manually
to a value somewhere between the extremes.
With some experience you'll learn how to de-
termine which deviations of the film from a
plane are incompatible with sharp scanning.
In this case a frame or glass holder should be
used instead of the standard strip holder, or
you should flatten the film, for which several
techniques exist. Or focus on the most impor-
tant object, sacrificing the backgroud and
what's already out of focus on the shot.

But even with autofocus the result must be way bet-
ter.

I liked the photo, especally after cropping it a bit
from both top and bottom.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anton Shepelev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
J. Clarke:

> > Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
> > http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg

>
> I think your scanner is busticated. It looks like
> the green on the left side of that shot is way,
> way out of register.


This has nothing to do with the scanner itself. It
only has a linear CCD array accepting light from
red, green, and blue LEDs, whose intensity may be
individually adjusted so that, say, a near-transpar-
ent region on the film scans as nearly white (245,
245, 245). This gives a good starting point for
white balance and allows for a more effective use of
the scanner's dynamic range in all channels.

But the device has no knowledge of color spaces and
converts the result to a user-selectable color space
using some "film profile". I avoid it and scan into
linear RGB, without any color-space conversions.
Vuescan lets me do it. The result is an RGB image
obtained by downmixing raw data from the CCD.

To open that image properly in Photoshop, a linear
(gamma=1.0) color space should be defined. Note,
that inverting a negative is not a linear operation
and should be done as:

y = 1 / x.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anton Shepelev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
Martin Brown:

> Not sure it is the scanners fault so much as the
> original source material never having been in good
> focus. Take a look at top right and edge where
> there is scratch damage to the slide -- that is
> tack sharp.


No, what you see there a pixel-sharp artifact of the
scratch-removal algorithm, digital ICE. That
scratch/tear was too wide for it. It uses a fourth,
infrared, channel to detect scrathces and retouch
them. You can scan in four channels and use IR in-
formation later in Photoshop to do the job better.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak reorganization Dale Digital Photography 4 05-06-2013 11:35 AM
4th RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganization Thad Digital Photography 75 10-22-2004 03:31 AM
Reorganization CFV James Silverton Digital Photography 2 10-09-2004 10:12 PM
Vote *NO* on reorganization Robert McClenon Digital Photography 19 09-13-2004 03:55 PM
Re: United Seeks 3rd Extension On Reorganization Plan Imya Rek Cisco 3 02-16-2004 12:26 AM



Advertisments